Rajasthan HC directs fair probe in Arms Act case, refuses to quash FIR based solely on co-accused disclosure

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that while a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without recovery or independent corroboration, constitutes a fragile piece of material at the stage of investigation, it cannot by itself justify quashing of an FIR when investigation is still in progress.

Justice Farjand Ali was deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 603/2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to FIR No.10/2026 dated 12.01.2026 registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 3, 25 and 25(8) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019).

As recorded in the order, the FIR was registered on the basis of a written report alleging that during routine patrolling, police recovered a pistol along with a magazine and cartridges from the possession of co-accused Mahendra S/o Madan Raigar. Upon inquiry, the co-accused allegedly stated that he had purchased the firearm and ammunition from the present petitioner. On this basis, the petitioner was shown as an accused on 16.01.2026 while he was already lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur in connection with another matter. He was arrested pursuant to a production warrant and remanded to police custody by orders dated 18.01.2026 and 20.01.2026.

The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, without any independent recovery or legally admissible corroborative evidence. It was submitted that no incriminating article was recovered from him and that he had been incarcerated since 2019, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. Allegations were also raised regarding lack of justification for the police custody remand.

Upon examining the FIR and material placed on record, the Court observed that the implication of the petitioner emanated exclusively from the disclosure statement of the co-accused from whose possession the firearm was recovered. Admittedly, no recovery had been effected from the petitioner. The Court recorded that a disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of discovery or independent corroboration, at best constitutes a fragile and inherently circumscribed piece of material at the stage of investigation.

The Court further noted that although the petitioner was already in judicial custody in another case, incarceration in a separate matter does not ipso facto grant immunity from investigation in a distinct offence. However, where a person is already in custody, the investigative agency must establish through objective material the precise modality by which the petitioner is alleged to have communicated or coordinated with the principal accused from within prison. Mere conjecture, without substantiating the mechanism of communication, would be legally untenable.

At the same time, the Court held that the FIR, at the present stage, disclosed commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation and could not be characterized as inherently absurd, mala fide, or devoid of foundational facts so as to justify judicial interdiction. The mention of the petitioner’s name during custodial interrogation of the co-accused furnished a legitimate ground for deeper probe. The petitioner’s assertion of innocence could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for quashing the FIR while investigation was ongoing.

Accordingly, the Court refrained from quashing the FIR or interfering with the investigation. However, in the interest of justice, it directed the investigating agency to conduct a fair, impartial and legally compliant investigation, strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by extraneous considerations, and to ensure that no coercive or oppressive steps are taken except in strict compliance with statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards.

The writ petition was partly allowed to the limited extent of issuing directions for fair investigation. No further relief, including quashment of the FIR or release of the petitioner, was granted. The stay petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title
Jitendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 603/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order
12/02/2026

Advocates
For the Petitioner: Ms. Anushree Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA